I thought it was probably a tie with some real zingers thrown in by Cheney. He didn't need a win. He only needed to stop the bleeding. Edward's said some really stupid things such as how "we have too many lawsuits in this country" - absurd coming from an ambulance chaser.

His bringing up of Cheney's lesbian daughter was uncalled and displays horrible character on the part of Edwards. Edwards almost came off as a used car salesman to me.

There wasn't much substance from either side in terms of what they would do for the country. They were too busy attacking each other. But man, bringing up the man's daughter was way out of line and totally classless. I'm pleased with Cheney's response to that.

"So now Kerry is a traitor? That's a very large and well-greased slippery slope, my friend. What you're saying is that any public figure who speaks out against the war is aiding the enemy because it boosts their morale, correct?

So Kerry's choice is either support the President or aid the enemy?"

Not at all. Kerry's choice is to support the war or be against it. We all know his position has changed as the polls and his opponent have required. The position that has been crafted for him, trying to put all these contradictory statements into a stance that can make sense as something other than political posturing, is indefensible - as Cheney pointed out last night. Look for Kerry's Iraq position (the war is a mistake, but we'll do it better) to be completely destroyed in the next few days.

The first debate benefitted Kerry - most people will say he "won". After that debate even Fox News recognized that the President didn't do well and that Kerry looked and sounded good.
After last night's debate I quickly turned it to CNN - Oh! the spin! Cheney clearly destroyed Kerry/Edwards foreign policy position and their criticisms of the current administration. Cheney had Edwards so flustered that Edwards briefly dropped his Southern accent, blustered a bit and played his Halliburton card out of desperation (although it was clearly not the time to do so). Cheney annhilated Edwards in the foreign policy part of the debate, but CNN and their spin doctors were downplaying that as much as they could.

The domestic policy was a different story. Edwards was able to speak to populist themes there, on issues that always favor Democrats/liberals/progressives. Cheney did OK, but conservative views on stuff like health care, welfare, unemployment, etc... don't have the pop that, "Elect me and I'll tax the rich and give you everything for free!", does.
One point that Edwards skewered the Republicans on was the gay marriage thing. They're right that it was a calculated political move.
That's my take on it anyways.

Biff-it looks to me like Cheney and you have a different take on Edwards comments. Here's a direct quote:

"Ms. Ifill Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

Mr. Cheney Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much."

The right wing of the Republicans has chosen to make gay marriage an issue. Edwards didn't broach the subject of Cheney's daughter with any venom or judgement. Or did I miss something. I might have been watching the proceedings at Yankee Stadium.

I spoke this morning with an old friend who has been a conservative Repub for the 30 years that I've known him. His take on the debate was one of disappointment. He thought that Cheney had perhaps stopped the perceived "bleeding" since the 1st debate, but had failed to go for the Kerry/Edwards jugular. Direct quote-"if he (Cheney) was supposed to be the attack dog-he wimped out. With all of his experience he should have been able to not only hold Edwards at bay-he should have slaughtered him".

I agree...it didn't appear that he was attacking Cheney's daughter or his family. The problem is that there is an unspoken rule about not talking about an opponent's family/children. That's where he stepped in it. The issue is still out in the mainstream, but it still doesn't come off well to be bringing it up for personal gain. Cheney took it well and then proceeded to deflate the issue. However, I'm sure he didn't appreciate his daughter being brought up on national TV.

"His bringing up of Cheney's lesbian daughter was uncalled and displays horrible character on the part of Edwards. Edwards almost came off as a used car salesman to me.

There wasn't much substance from either side in terms of what they would do for the country. They were too busy attacking each other. But man, bringing up the man's daughter was way out of line and totally classless. I'm pleased with Cheney's response to that."

Riffman, I didn't see that as an attack by Edwards either. I do think that Cheney said A LOT about actual policy in other areas.

And Cheney also answered the question regarding Bremer's comments about troop levels, but he did it later in the debate.

Anybody else feel like Cheney was talking at a pretty high level - maybe even over the heads of most voters?

"Anybody else feel like Cheney was talking at a pretty high level - maybe even over the heads of most voters?"

Absolutely. I was telling my wife exactly that last night. You really have to pay attention to what he is saying and have some level of education in both foreign and domestic affairs to keep up with him.....refreshing. The problem is that the majority of the sheep out there are herded not by knowledge, but by more simple appeals to selfishness and insecurity. That was my reason for saying that whether or not this was truly a win for Bush/Cheney is in the hands of the public.....unfortunately. On this topic, I find myself maintaining a grim outlook. I feel that our self-indulgence, our sloth, our apathy, and our laziness as a society has created a huge chasm between the true worthy electorate and the brainless chimps out there wiping their a$$es with their civic responsibilities.

I was reading your last post and I agree with your negative view of the voting public. Made me think of Starship Troopers where they had some sort of citizen class which had to be earned. Not saying that's my suggestion, just came to mind.

There is one enemy in this ballgame and it's the government spend-hog that Kerry wants to run. Bush may be a bit out of control on his spending right now, but Kerry is the one openly advocating for increased government involvment/control, which in turn translates to increased spending, which in turn translates to increased taxes.

Bush has been spending more and more and increasing the deficit. From what I heard from Edwards, he and Kerry want to reduce spending and only increase taxes for those that make over $200,000 and reduce taxes for middle income families, as well as cut the deficit in half. Doesn't sound very spend hoggish to me, but quite the opposite. Unless you just throw them under the "They're democrats so they must want to spend more" category.

I don't know if the public would ever allow it, but I can guarantee that our elections would mean more if something of that nature were instituted. Right now, it's nothing but competing circus acts.....each pandering to the lowest commond denominator, rather than challenging society to engage in the process and take part in government. Instead, like two pitbulls in a ring, we tear at each other's jugulars and accept subjogation by the maestro used car salesman we call politicians.